That Time Prostitution was Decriminalized in Wisconsin

In his unpublished autobiography, David S. Rose recalled that one of his first orders of business on being elected mayor of Milwaukee in 1898 was to set up an official red light district. “I started to make an investigation,” he wrote, “And ascertain what would be the best and safest policy for society, for the rising youth, for the suppression of crime.” Mayor “All the Time Rosy” was a Democrat and a machine politician, more or less Wisconsin’s analog to Tammany Hall, and arch enemy of Progressive “Fighting Bob” LaFollette, who is more or less Wisconsin’s patron saint.  Rose instructed the chief of police to pursue a policy of containment: sex commerce inside the boundaries of the River Street district would be ignored, and outside it would be fiercely prosecuted. The city flourished, Rose remained popular for decades, and Milwaukee grew its reputation as an “open town.”


Milwaukee Mayor David S. Rose (source: Milwaukee Historical Society)

Milwaukee was just one of many U.S. cities that decriminalized prostitution in the late 19th century, usually in the name of two things: preventing venereal disease, and protecting children. I say decriminalized rather than legalized, because it was not, in fact, ever legal to exchange sex for money. Rather enforcement became selective and strategic, to keep the sex trade regulated and geographically isolated, not necessarily in that order. Towns and cities all over Wisconsin tried some version of the decriminalization experiment until the rise of the Progressive movement turned the tide of public opinion against the regulation approach and toward a policy of abolition. Today we know about the “segregated vice” system mostly through the work of the Progressive reformers that dismantled it. In May of 1913, the Wisconsin State Senate passed bill, “to provide for the appointment of a committee to investigate and report on the subject of white slave traffic, and kindred subjects.” The committee would come to be known by the name of the State Senator who chaired it as the Teasdale Vice Committee. From 1913-1914 the Vice Committee deployed undercover private investigators throughout the state, to report on the true status of the segregated districts in Wisconsin.

Abraham Flexner, who is best remembered for importing the European system of medical education to the U.S. (and let me tell you it’s been slow going trying to get U.S. medical education to relinquish Flexner’s curriculum), was also an anti-vice reformer. He wrote in 1918, “Regulationist and abolitionist are absolutely agreed that prostitution exists and on a vast scale; that it is infinitely damaging; that something must be done about it. They disagree only as to what that something must be.” Those in favor of segregated vice districts and those opposed to it were equally vehement in their condemnation of commercial sex and their dire warnings that prostitution was a threat to decent citizens everywhere. They used the language of infectious disease to describe the sex trade, and they addressed it with policies that used the tactics of the burgeoning field of public health. “Regulationists” tried to quarantine prostitution, while “abolitionists” tried to eradicate it with both treatment (prosecution) and prevention (sex education). Continue reading

Talking about Abortion with my Mother

This is the third time I have posted this week on the topic of abortion, inspired by the proposed ban in Wisconsin on terminations after 20 weeks’ gestation. The following is a transcript of part of a conversation between myself and my mother, Mary Gordon, that took place yesterday afternoon on my couch in Madison. At my suggestion, we sat down to discuss my mother’s personal experiences with abortion, before and after Roe v. Wade, and recorded it for the purpose of sharing on this blog. I have edited it for clarity, meaning that I deleted some instances of um/uh/like and whatnot, as well as a few seconds when our words were inaudible, and a minute or two when my mom’s dog started to whine and required attention. A few hours after we talked, the 20-week abortion ban passed in the Wisconsin State Senate on a party line vote.

Anna: So, thanks for doing this.

Mary: Oh, you’re very welcome.

Anna: I wanted to do this because I’ve been writing on my blog recently about the public health and scientific aspects of abortion, and how I kind of got interested in it partly cause of my public health training and my epidemiologic training. But really if I go back further it’s not like that’s what persuaded me of any of the positions that I hold now, really. Most of us kind of don’t come to them through this like pure, reasoned, theoretical process, it’s because of stories of people that we know, and that’s particularly true I think for people that want to keep abortion legal. And, for me, a lot of my thinking about this has been shaped from talking to older women, talking to women who were alive before Roe. For women of my generation I think there’s a lot we don’t get about it, and it’s easy to miss what it was really like if you don’t talk to older people. So that’s kind of my thinking.

I guess I wanted to ask you to start with what—you’ve been involved in reproductive rights movements a lot, you’re a writer, you’re very vocally and publicly involved, and you’ve had a voice for a long time. What makes you willing to talk about your own abortions now, in ways that you haven’t wanted to in the past?

Mary: Well I think that it was probably your challenging me as to why I wasn’t talking about it publicly—

Anna: I challenged you about that?

Mary: Yeah.

Anna: I don’t remember doing that.

Mary: And I think that one reason why I’ve been unwilling to talk about my own abortions—which is not shame—but I thought that if I said I had an abortion, it would suggest that I was pro-choice in order to justify the position I had personally taken, and I was afraid that that would weaken my argumentation.

Anna: That you’d lose credibility.

Mary: Exactly. And so that’s really why I have been unwilling to do it. And now that I’m older and I think actually my voice isn’t as important, and that younger women are going to have to take the cause up or it’s going to die. Oddly that’s sort of liberating, and I think now’s the time. It’s not that I was silent because of shame, it was because I was afraid of it weakening my credibility. Cause, of the things I’m ashamed of in my life, you know, including not being nice to Joseph Kelly in eighth grade, I have not had one second of regret or guilt about having had an abortion. And I can feel guilty about almost anything.

Anna: Yeah that’s really true, you’re really good at that. That’s really interesting to me, cause I remember when you told me that you had had an abortion when I was about eight or nine, cause I’d seen [something about abortion] on TV and didn’t really know what it meant—I remember that you were really worried that I was going to have some kind of crisis about the idea that you could have had an abortion when you were pregnant with me. Which had like, never crossed my mind. That always stayed in my mind as though somewhere along the line you’d been indoctrinated with the idea that this part of your history was bad for your children.

Mary: Well it’s one of the things that the anti-choice people say, that if your children knew you had an abortion they’d always think that you could have aborted them. So I guess I was afraid.

Anna: I mean I guess I knew you could have, but I also knew you never wanted to. I’ve never doubted my wantedness.

Mary: My point is that even I was susceptible to the poisonous narrative that the anti-choice people are really good at. And you would say I should have known better, but you know “It will hurt your children” is a real hot button.

Anna: Yep. You know a lot of women of my generation, and actually I myself, are taking a tack of moving past the language of pro-choice and anti-choice.

Mary: So what’s the alternative?

Anna: I think the idea of there being a binary, that doesn’t describe most people’s position on the ethics of abortion or the best way to go about enacting whatever they would like to see–

Mary: So are you saying it’s pro-abortion and anti-abortion?

Anna: No, I’m saying that to be in favor of continued legalization, wanting to keep it decriminalized, is a big umbrella that can include a lot of people who have a lot of different positions on whether they think abortion is desirable, undesirable, morally neutral, ethically fraught, always a tragedy—you know, that people have as many different relationships to the concept of abortion as they do—

Mary: So then what language would you use to replace pro-choice and anti-choice?

Anna: I think that the idea would be to move to a place where you don’t describe your position with an identity anymore, you just describe the nuances. Like, you know, Planned Parenthood had the campaign about In Her Shoes, you never really know what decision another woman’s making until you’ve been in her shoes. And just emphasizing that there are more stories out there than you could possibly imagine, and you can’t think of all the contingencies that could lead to someone choosing an abortion. I get the feeling that’s not very satisfying to you.

Mary: No, cause one of the things that the right is better at than we are is buzzwords, and they work. So I’m concerned on that level that In Her Shoes doesn’t really get the message across that you are trying to keep abortion safe and legal. I can understand the reluctance to use the word choice—

Anna: Yeah cause for a lot of women, you know, what actually constitutes choice. It’s not much of a choice.

Mary: Right, but we better work on coming up with something.

Anna: Fair enough. So, can I ask you—one of the things I wanted to talk about today is, I mentioned that from a pretty early age I knew you had had an abortion. I didn’t know until I was an adult that you had had an abortion when it was illegal. So I was hoping you could talk a little about what that experience was like for you. So to start with, how did you become pregnant the first time?

Mary: Well, as you know I’m incredibly fertile.

Anna: Women in our family are so fertile.

Mary: And I had actually had sex twice (intercourse, penetrative sex), but the last time I had had intercourse was maybe six or seven months before I missed a period. So I got pregnant with somebody who had an orgasm on my thigh.

Anna: That’s like one of those stories that I always thought they were making up in sex ed class, that like could never really happen.

Mary: But it did, cause I literally didn’t have sex for six or seven months. And so I didn’t think I could possibly be pregnant.

Anna: Yeah, I don’t blame you.

Mary: But, you know, I did know that I had missed a period, my periods were very regular. I then when to a gynecologist, who said to me “Well you’re pregnant, and if you give me $2,000”—and this was in 1969, and I didn’t have twenty dollars—

Anna: And how old were you?

Mary: I was nineteen, and I was in college, on a scholarship. [He said], “If you give me $2,000, I will arrange for a psychiatrist to say that it would be emotionally dangerous for you to continue this pregnancy.” And I just said, you know, that’s not possible and he said goodbye and good luck. And then, I was a student at Barnard, and at Columbia actually, the Protestant chaplain was helping women get in touch with a network of abortions that were supposed to be relatively safe.

Anna: Was it like the Jane network in Chicago?

Mary: I don’t think so.

Anna: That is to say it wasn’t run by other young women?

Mary: No it was pretty secret, and I actually don’t know who ran it. Just that if you wanted that number, either of you could go Earl Hall. And I got the number. I told the guy who had made me pregnant that he had made me pregnant, and he didn’t believe me. I can’t really blame him, but he didn’t. And it cost $200 and I didn’t have it. A friend of his who did believe me came up with $100, and I had to borrow $10 from everybody else I knew.

Anna: Who gave you the $10?

Mary: All my friends.

Anna: And they were willing?

Mary: Yeah. And everybody was very sympathetic. I had a boyfriend at the time who was gay. But we were very close.

Anna: You knew he was gay?

Mary: Yeah.

Anna: But he was your boyfriend?

Mary: At that time you believed that if you loved somebody enough you could turn them, and he was in therapy and his shrink told him that if we loved each other enough he would get over this terrible disease. In any case, he agreed to go with me. We had to go to a street corner in the Bronx, somewhere in the Bronx, I don’t remember. He wasn’t allowed to come with me. I got in a car with someone I’d never seen before in my life. I had to wear a blindfold. I was brought somewhere, I have no idea where, to an apartment building. We went down to the basement, there were six or seven women sitting there, just in the living room of an apartment, and women would go in this door and then they’d come out looking very white. And we kind of all bonded, cause we were in this desperate situation, we all knew why we were there.

Anna: Who were they?

Mary: I don’t know. They were a big range of ages. I think everybody was white now that I think of it, and pretty middle class. And I had to wait there basically the whole day, it was really pretty terrifying. And we also knew that the cops could come in at any minute, and not only would you not get an abortion but you’d have to go to jail. So it was really terrifying. And finally my turn came, and there was a man, a Latino man, very kind. He said he was a doctor—I don’t know. He gave me a shot of Demerol, and it hurt like hell. He did a D&C.

Anna: So the Demerol was the only pain relief you had?

Mary: Yep. And it really, really hurt. And he kept saying, “I can’t stop, I can’t stop, I have to keep going.” And then it was over. The driver came and put the blindfold back on. My boyfriend had waited in a café or luncheonette for me all day. He took me home in a cab. I went to sleep. I made an appointment to see the gynecologist who wouldn’t help me.

Anna: For follow-up care?

Mary: For follow-up care. He was willing to see me, and not turn me in, which was—

Anna: More than you could get anywhere else.

Mary: And I was fine. Apparently he did a good job, there was no infection. You know, and that was it. But it was pretty terrifying.

Anna: And who supported you through all this?

Mary: All my friends. My one friend [name redacted, they are still extremely close] spent the night with me, and everybody was incredibly supportive and kind. I was terrified that my mother would ever find out because, that would be—

Anna: Right, yeah, with Nana that would be—

Both: The end of the world.

Mary: And she never found out. And I think that just the trauma of it made me very shaky, just what I had gone through made me very shaky for a couple of months.

Anna: Just in general?

Mary: Yeah. At the same time, my gay boyfriend was kind of shoving it in my face that he liked guys.

Anna: The one who had taken you to the appointment even though he wasn’t the one who got you pregnant?

Mary: Right. And that was a trauma. And then it was—there was just a lot of political turmoil in the air. I kind of think I put my energy into anti-war stuff because it was distracting—I mean I cared about it, it was a good thing to do. I was writing poetry, it was my first writing class, I was very very nurtured by my teachers at Barnard, particularly by Jan Thaddeus [Mom’s mentor] who nurtured me.

Anna: Did she know what you’d gone through?

Mary: I wrote about it. We didn’t talk about it, but it was kind of clear from the poetry, which she thought was good. And, I would say—it happened in January, and certainly by the summer I was kind of back to myself. And then I really determined that I was going to get involved in whatever we’re calling it—pro-choice, pro-abortion—and I really think I have been since—that was 1969.

Anna: So you weren’t involved in it before?

Mary: No, I was not.

Anna: Do you feel like that’s what made you get involved?

Mary: Yes. But I brought all my friends with me, none of whom had abortions.

Anna: Did you know other women who had been through it?

Mary: Not at the time. No. Later, I did. But not in my cohort.

Anna: Did you ever consider any alternative to an abortion?

Mary: No, no. It would have been—to have had a child—I thought that giving –If I believed—and I know you don’t think I have a scientific brain, but at least—

Anna: It’s not your brain!

Mary: If I really believed—and I was 10 weeks pregnant–if I really believed that a ten-week-old fetus was a child, I would not have an abortion, I really wouldn’t. And I had enough scientific intelligence to really study and read what the size was, what the development of the brain was, what the ability to feel pain was, and I really didn’t think that it was anything but a kind of advanced birth control. I felt I would never have been able to give a child up for adoption, because that would be a child, and I thought that having brought that life into the world I was really responsible for it. And also the pain of having carried a child to term—I would never have been able to live with giving it away. And if I had had a child it would have been the end of any kind of full life that I could have had. I would have had to go home and live with my mother and not finish college, work as some kind of secretary, and it would have been a life that would have been so radically diminished that I could only see a life of depression and misery ahead of me. The shame would have been, in my community, enormous, but more than that nobody would have helped me go back to school [Mom’s family had always opposed her going to college]. It would have been—now that I look back on it I can say well, maybe when the child grew up I could have gone back to school—

Anna: How many people actually make that happen, though? You have to be a pretty extraordinary person.

Mary: I was on a path that was very important to me and having a child would have meant the end of a fulfilled life.

Anna: And being in school–knowing as much of your biography as I do–being in school wasn’t just about being in school. It was a whole life away from the life you grew up in. It was most of the people who cared about you in the world.

Mary: Yes. And again, if I had believed that the fetus was a baby I would have just sucked it up. I’m very glad that I didn’t. But I think, of the things that I doubt about myself, I don’t think that I’m a morally callous person and I like to believe that I can look at the hard truths. And I’ve never wavered in that position, that early abortion is an absolutely ethically neutral if not an ethically positive choice.


None of the people pictured here are my mom.

Anna: For the record it’s not that I don’t think you have a scientific brain; I don’t think you have a scientific heart. It’s not the same thing. So then what I wanted to ask you is that you then had another abortion some years later, after Roe.

Mary: Yes.

Anna: One thing that someone told me when I was working with Medical Students for Choice which I found very helpful is that for a lot of people who’ve come up in an identity opposing abortion, very different from the one I grew up in, people don’t really make much of a distinction between legal and illegal abortion. It sort of seems like the same thing. So when I would share pictures from WHO of women who’d had illegal abortions that were botched and their intestines fell out of their vaginas or something like that—the friend who was telling me this was like, “That’s never going to persuade somebody, cause they’re just going to look at that and say yeah, abortion is terrible, we’ve got to do whatever we can to stop abortion.”

Mary: I do remember when I was working on pro-choice things in the early seventies, I was in graduate school, three of us that lived together shared a car, and I did have pictures of women with their intestines coming out of their vaginas which I left in the trunk. And one time this delivery boy opened up the trunk and went “AAAAAH!”

Anna: Oh dear. What did you say?

Mary: I don’t know what I said, I think I just put the groceries in really fast.

Anna: So I wanted to ask you if you’d talk about the experience with your second abortion and how it was different.

Mary: Yes. I had a diaphragm failure with my second abortion. I had a diaphragm in and it did not work. One of the things that I remember is I was able to go to Planned Parenthood in Syracuse, and this wonderful older nurse said to me, “I’ve come back from retirement to help people have abortions legally, because I saw the horror of illegal abortion and I’m so happy to be able to help women to have safe abortions without pain, and I’ve come back to work just to be a part of that.” And there was no terror, I didn’t think the cops were going to come and get me, I didn’t think that someone who could have been a plumber could have been doing the abortion.

Anna: How old were you?

Mary: I was twenty-three.

Anna: And you were in graduate school.

Mary: Yeah.

Anna: Were you in a stable relationship then?

Mary: No. And the person who made me pregnant I thought was about to get into a long-term relationship with me, and then the minute he left me he wrote to tell me that he was actually involved with somebody else.

Anna: The entire time?

Mary: Yep, as well as having given me gonorrhea.

Anna: Ugh, men suck.

Mary: So whereas I was really really traumatized for several months after the first illegal abortion cause I had been so terrified, it was really not traumatic at all.

Anna: What was it rather than being traumatic?

Mary: It was always a little bit sad. You think, gee, I wish this didn’t happen, and I wonder what this would be like—I don’t think anybody goes into –well maybe some people do, I can’t—I certainly didn’t go into it lightly. It was sad, I had to grieve it. I never regretted it.

Anna: How did you make your decision?

Mary: Again I would have – I was in graduate school, I was not in a stable relationship, I was starting a career, and you know I could not have raised—I could not have had the life I wanted to and raised a child. So the differences were really really significant. I felt safe, I felt cared for. Actually this wonderful nurse made me feel like I was doing a good thing. And it was just as easy as it could possibly be, as opposed to being utterly traumatic. Oh also the first abortion was a D&C, and this was an aspiration.

Anna: Do you mean they just used a curette the first time?

Mary: Yeah.

Anna: Gotcha.

Mary: Which is a lot more painful. The second abortion seemed to be a matter of seconds.

Anna: Were you conscious for it?

Mary: Mm-hmm.

Anna: There’s sort of not medical consensus these days about how much pain relief to provide, is the reason I asked, I was sort of curious how they were doing it back then.

Mary: Well, it didn’t hurt.

Anna: So how do you kind of feel about the experiences that you’ve had and how that’s shaped your feelings about abortion?

Mary: I like to think that I would have had the moral imagination to be pro-choice without these experiences, but certainly knowing that I really could have died—I really could have died. And you know, I did know girls in high school, it was Catholic high school, and they were pregnant and they went away and you never saw them again. And you never knew what happened to them. And in speaking to older women, I remember having had a lunch in Cape Cod, four wonderful women, I was in my thirties I think they were in their seventies, and every single one of them had had at least one abortion.

Anna: That’s something that has surprised me as well, is, it’s analogous to what I discovered when I had a miscarriage, and it turned out that a lot of people I knew had had miscarriages and I never heard about it. I found that once you start talking about abortion, particularly—well maybe with any group of women, but particularly with older women, I’m surprised how many never talk about it.

Mary: And speaking of miscarriage, I am a woman who has had abortions, a late miscarriage, and two healthy vaginal deliveries. And I’m telling you, I know what the experience—I had a miscarriage at twenty weeks. It still didn’t seem like a baby to me.

Anna: That’s interesting cause Dad, you know, Dad found that experience so devastating, and to him watching you have the miscarriage, and seeing—for you guys it was really losing a baby—and he didn’t quite use these words but he said that what came out of you really looked like a baby to him.

Mary: But I knew—that was something that I really grieved for a very long time, it really changed my life, the loss of that fetus, baby, whatever it was. But I didn’t name it. It was interesting. I didn’t have the impulse to name it, I didn’t have the impulse to bury it, I didn’t have the impulse to do a ritual around it. I mean I was sad because of the potential, but it would have seemed utterly ghoulish to bury it or name it. I knew it wasn’t a child. And that was interesting to me. Cause I certainly grieved it. But it was not a child. And Daddy felt the same way, even though he saw whatever I didn’t have to see.

Anna: So, you mentioned older women. What kinds of stories have women a generation older than you told you?

Mary: Stories of terror. A bunch of these women had gotten pregnant during the depression, and it was just not possible. I remember being in pro-choice groups with women whose mothers were very lower class and the women were doing it to each other in kitchens, and in really dangerous circumstances.

Anna: Peggy [my husband’s late grandmother] told me this story about how girls when they got pregnant would try to get a job at a bowling alley, because something about having to put up the pins, and with all these balls flying around was supposed to cause a miscarriage.

At this point the recording cut out, but we didn’t realize it till several minutes later. So the last few minutes of our conversation was lost, and we found we couldn’t recreate it after the fact. The last question I asked Mom was what she wished women of my generation and younger would understand. I posed that question to her a second time, and this is what she said:

Mary: What I hope that they understand, although it’s not something that they’ve experienced, is that when abortion is illegal or hard to come by, women die. Women have always had abortions because they’ve always needed to have abortions, for very good reasons. And a lot of them have died. And so you’re never going to stop abortion, you’re just going to stop women’s safety. And if you are concerned about abortion as a moral issue, which indeed you should be, I think it’s important to think that whatever is the nature or ontology of the fetus is pretty unknown, or certainly debatable. What’s not debatable is that if abortion is made illegal or unsafe, women will die. And to stop women from dying is certainly an unequivocal moral good. And I want that to be remembered.

Image source:

The Epidemiology of Abortion: A Primer

A few days ago I posted about the proposed ban here in Wisconsin on abortion after 20 weeks’ gestation–and about how honestly, we’d rather not talk about it. Today’s post involves not one but two things most people would rather not discuss: abortion and statistics. Wait, wait, don’t go! Here, have a calming manatee.


I wasn’t especially interested in the issue of abortion until I went to graduate school for my Master’s in Public Health. In my time there I came to appreciate the control of fertility as a public health issue. But it was really the training in epidemiologic methods that got me interested in the issue.

Research findings are a big part of the public discourse around abortion, specifically of the argument that undergoing an abortion is bad for your health. The safety of legal abortion is just one piece of a much larger debate, but it is an important piece. Unfortunately since most people are unfamiliar with the methodological issues involved, we have to rely on experts. Each side of any debate inevitably has its own experts, all wielding citations to published articles, so the lay public may be left with no clear idea of the state of the evidence, and could understandably conclude that this debate is just more divisive ideology with a scientific facade.

I think we can do better, though. As one of my statistics professors at Berkeley was fond of saying, “Why be a slave to some little number cruncher?” I happen to believe most people can understand the science around this issue just fine. This post is an attempt to provide a basic understanding of how people go about trying to prove or disprove a connection between abortion and subsequent health problems, and some tools to help you evaluate research claims for yourselves.

My intent is that this will be useful no matter what your perspective on the legality or accessibility of abortion. I don’t think a pretense of neutrality contributes constructively to the public conversation, and I make no attempt to hide the conclusions I myself have drawn. These issues have become so intertwined with social identity that it is rare to have a productive conversation about abortion among people with very different positions, but I’ve had such conversations and I want to have more of them. I’m not oblivious to the state of U.S. politics right now, but I continue to believe it’s possible to move the public debate away from “What side are you on?” and toward “What works?”


“Well I read it on HuffPo so shut your cake hole, Phyllis!”

The skills that allow a critical reading of scientific evidence are relevant to anyone who has or would like to have an opinion on the ethics of abortion. As I said in my last post, we have enough consensus to start a conversation as long as we agree on the precept that good ethics begin with good facts. If you disagree with that crucial premise, however, this is not the post for you. Perhaps you would like to pass the time on this excellent site instead.

Time for some Epidemiology 101. In order to keep this simple, I’m going to focus on just one hypothesis: that abortion causes depression. It’s plausible; having an abortion is often a difficult experience, accompanied by feelings of sadness and stress. Dozens of studies have examined the question. However the principles below apply equally well to other outcomes.

Let’s say that you know a person–we are going to call this imaginary person Veronica–who had an abortion at ten weeks of pregnancy, and six months later was diagnosed with depression. You suspect Veronica’s depression was caused by the abortion. However, you already know about Rooster Syndrome (just because the rooster crowed and then the sun came up doesn’t mean the rooster made the sun rise), so you know that just because Veronica had first an abortion and then an episode of depression doesn’t mean the two events are related. So how could you prove or disprove your suspicions?

What you really want to know is this: if Veronica had not had an abortion, would she still have depression now? The only way you could actually prove such a thing is with time travel. Since you have observed what happened to Veronica after having an abortion, you could get in your time machine, travel back to the moment before, and intervene so that in this version of history she never gets the abortion. You then stay in this alternate universe to observe her for six months and compare the two Veronicas. Did she still get depression? If she did, then you know that her abortion did not cause it. If she did not get depression in the alternate universe, then you know that in the real universe her abortion set into motion a chain of events that led to her depression.

You may recall that this alternate universe is what is known in theoretical circles as the counterfactual scenario (thanks, David Hume!). Obviously, it is not real–boy I hope that’s obvious. But I bring it up because I think it helps to understand how studies are designed. A useful way to think about critiquing a study is to ask how close or far it gets us to the counterfactual scenario, given our ongoing shortage of time machines.

Even before we leave the alternate universe, though, we already have some methodological issues. You can’t simply erase Veronica’s abortion; if she doesn’t have an abortion she has some other experience instead. You are always comparing the results of the abortion to the results of something else. So how did you intervene to prevent the abortion? Did you go yet further back in time and provide her with a condom at the appropriate moment so that she never got pregnant at all? Did you get her take her to a pub crawl before she ever missed her first period, causing a miscarriage through heavy drinking? Did you provide support for her during her pregnancy in exchange for agreeing to adopt the child? Did you remove some of the barriers to giving birth, allowing her to choose to raise a child herself right now (you can probably come up with $245,000 considering you came up with a time machine)?

We can’t know without testing them what the outcome of any of these scenarios would be, but it seems plausible that they could make Veronica less vulnerable to depression. But on the other hand…

Did you make her an appointment at a Crisis Pregnancy Center where she was misinformed about how far along she was in her pregnancy so that she couldn’t schedule the abortion until past the time when the clinics in her area could perform it? Did you call up a group of  your friends to stand in front of the clinic shouting and thrusting pictures of mutilated children at her, until Veronica was too afraid to enter the clinic?  Did you close the only clinic she could get to, by lobbying your state legislators to pass laws requiring abortion providers have hospital admitting privileges? Did you kill the only abortion provider in the area? Did you get the US Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade so that Veronica would–let’s say she lives here in Wisconsin–face three years in prison for getting an abortion, while her doctor would face ten?

Personally, I find it much harder to believe that these experiences would be less traumatic and less likely to cause depression than choosing an abortion. Plenty of people would disagree with me, though. But I’m an empiricist by nature and training–we can’t actually know what works by reasoning it out in our heads. The point is that none of these interventions are equivalent to each other, and none carries an equivalent risk of depression. You’re going to have to get in your time machine and go back at least nine times in order to conduct this counterfactual experiment. At least you will if you want to know if any of these strategies would actually have made Veronica healthier than she is here in the universe in which she got an abortion.

We can’t actually observe the counterfactual, so what’s the next best thing? The next best thing would be to observe two identical people, one of whom has an abortion and one of whom doesn’t. I’m not talking twins here, cause as Orphan Black teaches us, genetics do not make a person. I mean two people who are actually the same people. So we’ll get a big tub of programmable flesh, make ten pregnant doppelgängers of Veronica and…


Okay, okay. Enough about time machines and programmable flesh; let’s take this back to reality. When it comes to abortion, you can’t observe the same person under two conditions, and you can’t observe two copies of the same person. What you can do is compare two groups. The people in the groups are not the same, but the groups are the same on average. In particular they are the same with respect to everything that predicts depression–same number of people of each race and ethnicity, same number of people at each age, same number of people with children, same number of married people, same number of people living in poverty, same number of people with a prior history of mental illness, etc. If in fact your hypothesis is correct and abortion causes depression, that doesn’t mean that you would expect to find that everyone in the abortion group has depression, or that zero people in the comparison group have it, because lots of other factors cause depression in some people and protect against it in others. But if there is a causal connection, you would expect to see meaningfully (how meaningful? ymmv) more cases of depression in the abortion group.

In real studies, investigators attempt to make groups that are the same on average by randomly assigning subjects to one group or the other. Obviously no one will be conducting a study in which every pregnant person who enters the the study is randomly assigned to Group A or Group B, and then the Principal Investigator assigns Group A to give birth and Group B to have an abortion. Boy I hope that’s obvious, cause if it’s not I hope none of you are conducting any experiments. So when it comes to studying the effect of abortion, that study design is out, too. Abortion is hard to study.

Given that there will be no randomized groups, which groups can you compare? Now at last we arrive at real-world research. Here are a few strategies researchers have employed to try to study the effects of abortion.

Skip the comparison group. One strategy is to study only people who have had abortions, and draw conclusions from just one group (example here, admittedly an old one) . But you already know what is wrong with this reasoning. This is Rooster Syndrome again. Without a comparison group of people who did not have an abortion, there is nothing to suggest that the abortions are responsible for the prevalence of depression in this group. This is the weakest kind of evidence.

Compare people to themselves. An alternative strategy is to measure the same people twice (example here), before and after the abortion, and compare how much they’ve changed. That’s more convincing, but it doesn’t help with Rooster Syndrome.

Compare pregnancies ending in abortions to wanted pregnancies or miscarriages. Most studies on this topic have compared a group of people who chose to end unwanted pregnancies to a group of people who chose to continue planned or wanted pregnancies (example here). This type of study is limited by the fact that it is impossible to know how much of the differences between the two groups result from abortions and how much result from the higher proportion of unwanted pregnancies among people who choose abortions. An unwanted or mistimed pregnancy is an extremely stressful experience, no matter how the pregnancy ends, and could explain different amounts of depression in the two groups. In epidemiologic terms, this type of bias is called confounding. The relationship of abortion to depression is likely to be confounded by the “wantedness” of the pregnancies in studies using this type of comparison group.

Compare pregnancies ending in abortions to unwanted pregnancies carried to term. Other studies have compared a group of people who had abortions to a group of people who chose to continue unintended pregnancies (example here). That removes the issue of confounding by “wantedness,” but there are still important sources of bias here.

One of the most important issues is that people who have had depression in the past are more likely than people who have never had it to have another depressive episode–no surprise there. So one important predictor of depression after an abortion is depression before the abortion. Since ones current and past mental health can factor in to how capable one feels of continuing a pregnancy, failure to account for mental health history can lead to what is known as an indication bias. In this case the perceived need for an abortion (the indication) is associated both with the probability of choosing an abortion and with subsequent depression–potentially creating a spurious association.

There are other sources of indication bias, as well. In this study, some of the reasons people in the U.S. cited for choosing an abortion included “Can’t afford the basic needs of life,” “Not enough support from husband or partner,” “Physical problem with my health,” and “Became pregnant as a result of incest.” These are things that can contribute to depression no matter how the pregnancy ends.

How close do you think those two groups of people are to being the same on average at the start of the study? If people who continue their pregnancies are more likely on average to have supportive partners, adequate financial resources, good physical health, and good mental health, they are less likely to have depression. You may find more depression in the abortion group, but it is impossible to know whether that is a result of their having had abortions or of the preexisting issues that led to them feeling they needed abortions.

Statistically adjust or “control” for sources of bias. Any of the above methods that use a control group can use statistical methods to reduce confounding bias by measured effects. This is a complex topic that I’ll have to cover another day, but I’ll just give a brief overview. You know that people living in poverty are more likely to have abortions, and more likely to have depression, so you think socioeconomic status could be biasing your estimate of the relationship between abortion and depression. So you use statistical techniques to adjust your estimate for socioeconomic status, so that the estimated association between abortion and depression can be interpreted as independent of class. At least you can try. How well you can adjust for potential confounders depends on how well you can measure them (socioeconomic status is challenging to characterize well). But most importantly, you can’t measure every kind of confounder. There will always be some patterning in who gets and abortion and who gets a different pregnancy outcome, and some of that patterning will lead to distortion. It’s an inherent limitation of observational epidemiologic studies.

Given all these different approaches, there has been a lot of conflicting evidence about the relationship of abortion to depression. These three influential systematic reviews found that there was no evidence of an association between abortion and depression and that most of the research on the topic was fundamentally flawed, but the author of a fourth review disagreed, and by choosing a different set of studies to review found evidence that people who had abortions did have more depression.


Right about now you might be asking me what was the point of telling you all this if there’s no clear answer, and it all just depends on who you ask. But we’re not done yet, because someone came up with an extremely elegant solution to the limitations of the methods described above.

Compare people who chose abortions and obtained them to people who chose abortions but were denied them. Now we arrive at the highest quality evidence available. In comparing two groups of people that both sought out abortions, you solve the problems of confounding by “wantedness” and confounding by indication. When people are recruited at the same clinics you remove many other sources of confounding by socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, and you remove some of the influence of selection bias (when people who had abortions and have depression are more likely to join or stay in your study than people who don’t). You also get an assessment that is more relevant to the question of whether abortion should be legal and/or accessible.

There is only one study that has ever used this design. It is called the Turnaway Study, and you should remember that name because it is very important. Importantly, the subjects in this study were all at very similar stages of pregnancy, but some were just over the limit of when abortions could be performed at their clinic. Subjects did not self-select into the two groups. This is about as close to random assignment as an observational study can get, and thus the best approximation of the counterfactual scenario. Incidentally, the Turnaway Study findings suggest that having an abortion was associated with similar or even lower risk of depression as carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Clearly I can’t cover all of epidemiology in one blog post, or even all of the methodological issues involved in studies of the effects of abortion. But I hope this has given you an action plan:

1. When you read an article claiming a study says “abortion causes ______” or “abortion is associated with ______,” you ask “Compared to what?”  Likewise, when a study says “women who had abortions have more/less ______,” you ask, “Compared to whom?”

2. When you read study results, think critically about how much the observed differences between comparison groups are telling you about abortion, as opposed to other things correlated with abortion like socioeconomic status, past mental health history, lack of access to contraception, lack of health literacy, etc.

3. Read a lot about the Turnaway Study. They are publishing a lot of results, all of them interesting. Right now this is the best kind of evidence we have.

Class dismissed.

Image: An Argument from Opposite Premises, Follower of Ralph Hedley [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Wisconsin’s Abortion Ban is a Bad Idea–No Matter How you Feel about Abortion

We need to talk about the abortion ban that is well on its way to becoming Wisconsin law. People who believe abortion is never justified need to talk about it. People who believe abortion is morally neutral need to talk about it. Most people’s take on abortion is more complex than either of the above, and they most of all need to talk about it. The ethics of abortion are hard, and I respect that different people will give these issues years of careful thought and still come to different conclusions. If we all endorse the adage that good ethics begin with good facts, then we have enough consensus to start a conversation, so let’s begin. If you disagree, then this is probably not the post (or the blog) for you. Perhaps you would like to pass the time instead by reading this heartbreaking classic by the great American poet Lucille Clifton. Clifton knew better than anyone that it would be easier not to talk about abortion. But that’s not good enough. So this is what I have to say.

There is no evidence that banning abortion late in pregnancy leads to fewer abortions. Other states have tried it, and there is no evidence that it worked. For one thing, very few such abortions are performed–as you probably know, they are only about one percent of all abortions in the U.S. As you also probably know, these are mostly abortions performed in response to a medical diagnosis, maternal, fetal, or both. One doctor has publicly speculated that the ban may lead to more abortions as families may not have time to wait to get all the information, and may wind up ending a pregnancy that could have led to a live birth.

These are the stories no one wants to think about. It’s easier to pretend that if you want a baby, and you take the greatest possible care trying to bring your baby into the world, if you believe in the sanctity of life, and try to be a good person and a good mother, that you and your baby will thrive. We could all pretend that no pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer, that all fetuses develop kidneys and brains, that live-born children with Trisomy 18 don’t suffer in the 48 hours during which 95% of them will die. We could also pretend that these things only happen to people who did something wrong, or who are in some way different from us. Compassion is much harder. What if a few moments’ witness to the pain of a family having to lose the baby they wanted is just too much, and it breaks us?

Some of the figures involved in Wisconsin politics right now are claiming that pregnancy never kills. It’s an easy enough lie to tell, because these scenarios are rare. Most people don’t know anyone who had to end a pregnancy to save their own life, so it’s easy for them to dismiss such stories as abstractions. Not, however, for doctors. Doctors meet the people who are living this nightmare. They have to deliver the news no one ever wants to hear. That’s one of the reasons so many doctors oppose this kind of legislation. It’s one of the reasons why the Wisconsin Medical Society and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, neither of them known for their fringe political stances, have opposed this bill in Wisconsin. As of this writing the proposed law still contains an exception for cases when carrying a pregnancy to term would kill someone–at least I think it does. The language is pretty vague, and I’m no lawyer.

But the truth is, this is all beside the point. You may think parents should not have the right to make these decisions for any reason, but we can agree to disagree. Likewise you may feel persuaded by the argument that any amount of uncertainty over whether later abortions cause fetal pain means those abortions should not happen, even if the weight of the evidence is against it. That is also beside the point. It’s all beside the point as far as this law goes, because abortion bans don’t work.

What is the purpose of this bill? It pretty clearly won’t end abortions, late or otherwise. Wisconsin women will have to obtain them in other states. To quote this econometrics paper, “The demand for abortion is quite inelastic.” That could never be more true than in the case of late abortions. It should not surprise anyone that the consequences of having to travel for an abortion can be devastating for families living in poverty. As was the case before Roe and now, restrictions on abortion do not apply equally. Money could always get you an abortion, probably even a safe one.

The real purpose of this bill is probably to provoke a ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court. Then the conversation about abortion will change. Most of that conversation will surround the ethics of abortion. And it will be a waste of time. Not because the ethics aren’t important–they are–but because they are moot. Making abortion illegal doesn’t make abortion go away. These attempts tend to backfire. Looking at aggregate data, countries in which abortion is illegal actually have more abortions. The demand for abortion is inelastic. Abortion need not even be illegal to prove that point. Even within my time in medical school, a doctor here in Madison told me about a patient who was flown in from a rural area after she nearly died attempting to give herself an abortion with a knitting needle.

I still believe that it is possible to achieve consensus on abortion in the U.S. No one actually has to change their mind or compromise any ethics in order to achieve this consensus; all we need to do is embrace the practice of evidence-based policy. Cause the evidence suggests making abortion a crime is not going to reduce abortions.  Are you bothered by how many abortions are performed in the U.S. right now? Guess what, me too. Let’s get cracking on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Are you bothered by the idea that someone might feel like they couldn’t continue a wanted pregnancy because of a diagnosis of Down Syndrome? Guess what, me too. How about we get some legislation going that supports families of children with special needs, and makes the deck a tiny fraction less stacked against people living with cognitive disabilities. I would so much rather be working on either of those issues, wouldn’t you?

And let’s not do a few other things. Let’s not make women choose between watching their child suffer and going to prison. Let’s not force women to risk their lives by continuing a pregnancy because they could not prove there was a zero percent chance of survival without an abortion. Let’s not create an underground economy for abortions because they are no longer performed legally by doctors.

On this blog I usually try to make my points with a dose of humor, but I can’t on this one. The truth is I’m profoundly depressed about the state of politics in Wisconsin, and the general unwillingness of the politicians who control all three branches of government right now to use evidence. I’m not utterly clueless. I have a pretty shrewd idea of what’s going to happen with this law. I sure hope it doesn’t lead to more abortions. But it probably will.

I Read the Anti-Vaccine Doctor’s Manifesto so You Don’t Have to

YoureWelcomeIt is a frequent theme in anti-vaccination circles that you should not follow medical advice just because a doctor told you to. I 100% agree. Any doctor who cannot articulate her reasoning to you, acts like you aren’t capable of understanding the issues affecting your own body and mind just because you aren’t a doctor, or answers your question with any variation of “Because I said so,” deserves your mistrust. As is true for most professions, some doctors are stars, most are competent and worth working with, and a few need to find another line of work. Even great doctors make mistakes, or just get the wrong end of the stick on certain issues. You shouldn’t take anything a doctor says as gospel just because of the degree he holds. After all, some unlucky day you might find yourself in the care of a reprehensible sleazebag that has somehow oozed through the cracks in the medical system and is still allowed to call himself a physician–someone like Jack Wolfson.

If you’re lucky enough to have missed out on this man’s recent antics, I am so, so jealous. Anyway a few days ago this dude went on his local NBC affiliate station to discourage people from vaccinating, and then got on CNN and into USA Today. It is frowned upon for medical students to call doctors names (hi residency programs!), so please know that I did not make the decision lightly to say the following: a white coat stuffed full of kegel weights would give better medical advice than this guy.

Now he has put out a piece of writing on a site called Vaccine Impact (whatever the farts that is), titled “Why all the anger?” Jack Wolfson is really, really confused about all the anger, see. So confused. It is definitely a problem that the people who are angry at him are having. It’s definitely not a rational reaction to something he did. It’s like if you woke up one morning to find a sounder of warthogs had moved into your apartment, you would totally ask, “Why all the warthogs?” It would be really confusing. It’s kind of like that.

I’m not going to link to the original piece because I don’t care to boost its traffic any higher. Google it yourselves if you want it that bad. I will, however, be quoting from the piece below, and answering his title question for him.

Take it away, Jack:

I recently did an interview which was aired on NBC Phoenix. I was asked my opinion on vaccinations in response to the current measles outbreaks that have occurred at Disneyland in California. My reply has generated quite a bit of anger in thousands of people.

In case you missed it, 84 people in 14 states now have measles from this outbreak.

There has also been a tremendous amount of support to my comments and opinions. In short, The Society Against Injecting Our Kids With Chemicals (TSAIOKWC for short) has a lot of followers.

Well we’re mad about this part, because here at The Society Against Infecting Other People’s Kids With Lethal Contagions (TSAIOPKWLC), we love injecting children. The flu mist and the oral vaccines for polio and rotavirus are great, but there’s nothing quite as satisfying as making a child cry. When I get home from work, even if it’s been a really long and frustrating day, the first thing I do is release one of the children from the cage area, let it run around for a bit, then tackle it and give it a Hep B shot. Once I have harvested its tears to power my jet pack, I let it go, cackling, “That’s just round one of three!” It really clears my head.

And that’s nothing compared with the high you get knowing you’ve injected a kid with chemicals. I mean–chemicals! They’re so sinister and awful. Sometimes when I can’t sleep I like to wake up one of the cage children by whispering, “We’re all made of chemicals. The very oxygen you breathe is a chemical.” They never get back to sleep, but I’m out the second my head hits the pillow. Infectious agents on the other hand are totally natural, good-smelling, and benign. Mumps, I mean the word just sounds cute, doesn’t it?

Some of my fellow TSAIOPKWLC members have argued that we’re depriving the world of an important source of child tears by drastically reducing the risk of these children contracting a disease that would cause real suffering, but I just can’t help it. I love the needles.

I want to address all this misguided anger and see if we can re-direct it where it belongs.

Jack Wolfson knows where your anger belongs. Your anger just got disoriented on the way to Water Aerobics and lost its way–he’s going to redirect it for you.

1. Be angry at food companies. Sugar cereals, donuts, cookies, and cupcakes lead to millions of deaths per year. At its worst, chicken pox killed 100 people per year. If those chicken pox people didn’t eat cereal and donuts, they may still be alive. Call up Nabisco and Kellogg’s and complain. Protest their products. Send THEM hate-mail.

That’s right, folks. Cupcakes are worse than meningitis. Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Cookie Monster. That’s pretty much the whole list. In fact, because Kix kills millions of people (I’m pretty sure that’s true. Also pretty sure those people are children. Right?), you should stop calling Jack Wolfson out on his nonsense. Someone over there is doing a bad thing, therefore what I am doing is right. The logic is so compelling. He didn’t even wait to pull out this classic derailing tactic, it’s right up there at number one.

2. Be angry at fast food restaurants. Tortured meat burgers, pesticide fries, and hormone milkshakes are the problem. The problem is not Hepatitis B which is a virus contracted by drug users and those who sleep with prostitutes. And you want to inject that vaccine into your newborn?

Interestingly, one of the groups of people at greatest risk for Hepatitis B are newborns, who can get the disease from their mothers. But FYI, if you have an addiction to an injectable drug, perform sex work, or have sex with someone who does, Jack Wolfson would like you to know that you are less important than the cows that become hamburger.

3. Be angry at the companies who make your toxic laundry detergent, fabric softener, and dryer sheets. You and your children are wearing and breathing known carcinogens (they cause cancer). Call Bounce and Downy and let them know. These products kill more people than mumps, a virus which actually doesn’t cause anyone to die. Same with hepatitis A, a watery diarrhea.

What do we have to say to someone who stops to explain the definition of the word carcinogen, but provides no explanation for his claim that everything that does not kill you is safer than clean laundry? We say, “Spoken like a man who has never had a scrotal abscess caused by mumps.” It is true that mumps is not typically fatal, but it does cause fun things like male infertility and deafness. I’m sure Jack Wolfson is working tirelessly to change our built environment to accommodate Deaf children and adults and allow them the full pursuit of their civil rights. And you don’t want grandchildren anyway, so no biggie. As for Hep A, merely a few weeks of watery diarrhea and a touch of liver disease. That’s no big deal for a kid, or for their parents, I’m sure your job will totally give you those weeks off to care for your sick kid. Not many people wind up needing liver transplants, it’s fine. Dryer sheets are way worse.

Seriously does anyone know where this claim comes from? Because I have not been able to find it.

4. Be angry at all the companies spewing pollution into our environment. These chemicals and heavy metals are known to cause autism, heart disease, cancer, autoimmune disease and every other health problem. Worldwide, these lead to 10’s of millions of deaths every year. Measles deaths are a tiny fraction compared to pollution.

Haaaaa ha ha ha ha. Known to cause autism. And every. other. health. problem. There is literally no health problem that is not caused by environmental pollution. And also the fact that pollution exists means you should stop being mad at Jack Wolfson.

5. Be angry at your parents for not breastfeeding you, co-sleeping with you, and stuffing your face with Domino’s so they can buy more Tide and finish the laundry. Breastfeeding protects your children from many infectious diseases.

Parents are so selfish. Trying to finish the laundry–can you imagine? Their precious children are right there in front of them, but they just love Tide more than they love their children.

On the reals now, though, breastfeeding does protect children from infectious diseases, but only a) while you are breastfeeding and b) provided you yourself have immunity against those diseases.

6. Be angry with your doctor for being close-minded and not disclosing the ingredients in vaccines (not that they read the package insert anyway). They should tell you about the aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, aborted fetal tissue, animal proteins, polysorbate 80, antibiotics, and other chemicals in the shots. According to the Environmental Working Group, newborns contain over 200 chemicals as detected by cord blood. Maybe your doctor feels a few more chemicals injected into your child won’t be a big deal.

Some thoughts on vaccine ingredients follow.

Aluminum: Also found in pots and pans.

Mercury: Even if it were unsafe, which it isn’t, mercury is no longer an ingredient in routine vaccines.

Formaldehyde: Way less in a vaccine than in a banana.

Fetal tissue: This is a lie.

Polysorbate 80: Commonly found in ice cream.

Animal proteins: Also found in ice cream.

Antibiotics: I like my medicine contaminated, thank you very much. That’s why I go with un- to loosely regulated treatments like homeopathy.

Over 200 chemicals: Cord blood containing zero chemicals would be made of anti-matter, and that would be pretty weird.

It must really suck to have to deal with a closed-minded doctor.

7. Be angry with the cable companies and TV manufacturers for making you and your children fat and lazy, not wanting to exercise or play outside. Lack of exercise kills millions more than polio. Where are all those 80 year olds crippled by polio? I can’t seem to find many.

He just can’t find them. Where could they possibly be? Dr. Wolfson–can I call you Jack?–Since you’re too lazy to do a google search, I would love to introduce you to my grandmother, for whom I was named. I can’t, because she’s dead, but also because she would have very little patience for your shenanigans. She got polio at age 3, leaving her permanently disabled. Among other consequences, this was the reason she was not allowed to enroll in teaching school–they said having braces on her legs meant she couldn’t get the kids out fast enough in a fire. Two of her eight siblings were also permanently disabled as a result of their polio infections. ETA: Also, nice choice of words.

Iron Lungs

These children’s breathing muscles were not paralyzed. They are just playing hide and seek inside these iron lungs.

8. In fact, be angry with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates for creating computers so you can sit around all day blasted with electromagnetic radiation reading posts like this.

Posts like this are indeed a reason to regret the invention of the computer.

9. Be angry with pharmaceutical companies for allowing us to believe living the above life can be treated with drugs. Correctly prescribed drugs kill thousands of people per year. The flu kills just about no one. The vaccine never works.Never...

Five children have already died from the flu, just here in Wisconsin, just this year. Fifty-six across the U.S. In adults, death from influenza is much more common. Over a 30-year period the CDC estimates the yearly rate of influenza deaths as ranging from “a low of about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people.” Where Jack Wolfson’s estimate of “just about no one” comes from is unclear.

Nor is it clear what basis he might have for his claim that the vaccine never works. Some scientists using data on actual people found that the flu shot reduces the number of children hospitalized with a life-threatening infection by 75%, and reduces adult deaths from influenza by 71%.

Finally, be angry with yourself for not opening your eyes to the snow job and brainwashing which have taken over your mind. You NEVER asked the doctor any questions. You NEVER asked what is in the vaccines. You NEVER learned about these benign infections.

Jack Wolfson knows you really well. You have never met him, but he knows everything he needs to know about you because you are angry at him. That means you have NEVER asked questions of any doctor. Because the only possible outcome of asking a doctor questions is to stop being angry at Jack Wolfson.

Also, benign infections. I forgot he actually used those words. I was just kidding before. But he actually said it.

Let’s face it, you don’t really give a crap what your children eat. You don’t care about chemicals in their life. You don’t care if they sit around all day watching the TV or playing video games.

Wow. Those are mean things to say. Because you have a problem with what he said about vaccines, you don’t care about your kids?

All you care about is drinking your Starbuck’s, your next plastic surgery, your next cocktail, your next affair, and your next sugar fix!

Maybe it’s just the exclamation point, but…it kind of seems like Jack Wolfson hates people who don’t agree with him. Like…he needs to create a straw man to argue with? And, hang on…is it just me or does it seems like that’s a straw woman?  If I didn’t know any better I would have said he seems…almost…angry.

This post was created with love and with the idea of creating a better world for our children and future generations. Anger increases your risk of suffering a heart attack. Be careful.

He is so much better than anger. All he does is threaten people that if they don’t leave him alone they’re going to get a heart attack. This is so lovingly full of love. Yeah that’s probably what it’s full of.

I wonder why people don’t trust doctors.

A Handy Guide to Freaking Out About Healthcare Workers and Ebola

(Click on the comic to see it larger) EbolaOccupationalHealth

If you spend any amount of time talking to people who work in U.S. hospitals, then you know some people who are totally over discussing Ebola. My friend Amanda, an EMT, recently announced, “I just discovered a new disease. It’s called E.I.F. (Ebola Information Fatigue). Symptoms appear during, or after, Ebola information and planning events and include mental overload, extreme tiredness, headache, and an urge to bash one’s head against a table upon hearing the phrase ‘but this will change.'” And it sure doesn’t help that the public conversation about Ebola for the past few weeks is all about doctors and nurses and whether or not their selfish desire to go bowling or biking is going to kill us all.

The misplaced priorities are pretty frustrating. Ebola matters–I’d like to think this goes without saying, given that more than 4,000 people have died in this outbreak, and it’s been predicted to get much, much worse. This is an urgent crisis in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. But stateside the public conversation is all about us, with all of the urgency that should be applied to the epidemic in Western Africa instead being applied to freaking out about the handful of American healthcare workers who have been exposed.

Ebola is legitimately scary because of its high mortality rate–that is, a scarily high proportion of people who are infected die from the disease–but not because it’s especially infectious. As usual, however, the people hyping its scariness are doing so for reasons unrelated to epidemiology. Ebola has become a political issue because of the widespread concern that decades of budget cuts to the CDC and NIH have strained our health care system past the point where we can cope with a major epidemic. Nah, just kidding, it’s racism again.

So to help you wade through the mire of misinformation, and generally organize your response to the specter of Ebola on U.S. soil,  here, as promised, is a handy guide, which will help you to spend your freakout time in the most efficient way possible.

Question 1: Are you a healthcare worker?

Question 2: There is no question 2.

EbolaDogJokeIf you answered no to Question 1, stop freaking out about Ebola and go worry about any of the other completely horrible world events in the news. Seriously, consider yourself in the clear. It’s just not that easy to get Ebola. This is not the fictional virus in 12 Monkeys that was released just by unstoppering a test tube. To get Ebola you have to have contact with the fluids of a person who is already ill. People who have been exposed can take steps to isolate themselves before they become infectious as long as they watch out for symptoms. This last issue is why it really doesn’t matter that the infected doctor in New York went bowling the night before he got sick, and why I consider it plain that the governor of Maine’s attempts to isolate a nurse who wasn’t even infected was pure political theater.

If you’re worried about catching Ebola from randos on the subway, rest assured that regular folk can protect themselves from exposure by doing things you already have reasons to do: washing hands, using condoms, minimizing contact with other people’s vomit, etc. In a country with good sanitation and a (mostly) functional public health infrastructure, the risk to the general public is, to use a scientific term, bupkis. All known cases of Ebola have been people who cared for the sick or the dead.

But that, of course, is exactly what health care workers do. For them it’s a different question. In the countries where Ebola has been widely transmitted, over 200 health care workers have died. That’s just another number, but let the meaning of that sink in for a minute. People have continued to show up to work in drastically under-resourced settings to care for the sick and the dying, knowing their own lives were on the line.

In the U.S., obviously the situation is different–a handful of cases rather than thousands, comparatively abundant resources for infection control, and legal protections intended to prevent workers from catching their patients’ germs. There are protocols.

Here’s the catch. It turns out that the question of how Ebola is transmitted is a matter of some controversy, and by extension it is not clear whether the protocols which exist to protect health care workers are adequate. The epidemiologic evidence shows that dead horse I’ve been beating, that you can’t get Ebola unless you’re in close contact with an infected person. But other than proximity, there is not much evidence as to how the people who did get the virus got infected. For a comprehensive treatment of the topic by scientists who study occupational exposures and the transmission of pathogens, go read this commentary by Drs. Brosseau and Jones. For those less comfortable with technical language, I’ll provide a far less expert summary.

Ebola is assumed to be transmitted by droplets, meaning that when fluids are expelled from a sick person’s body into the air they are too heavy to stay there and quickly fall down to a surface below. That’s how colds are transmitted–different fluids, but the same principle. Unless someone sneezes directly into your mouth or eyes, most people catch droplet-transmitted infections by touching a surface onto which germ-laden droplets fell, and then touching their own eyes, nose, or mouth with their contaminated hand. The most powerful prevention for a droplet-transmitted pathogen is simple handwashing.

Airborne pathogens such as TB, in contrast, are found in small particles that stay in the air for long periods of time and travel greater distances, allowing people to breathe in the germs and become infected.  And because these particles are small, they can still slip in the space between your face and a mask, or even between your face and a respirator if the respirator doesn’t fit right or doesn’t filter out small enough particles.

I was always taught that there was a clear line between droplet transmission and airborne transmission, but the truth turns out to be more complex. As the commentary I linked to above makes clear, the concept of this binary distinction dates back to a time when no one had the ability to measure very small particles in the air. In reality there is more of a continuum. The closer you are to a sick person, the easier it is to breathe in larger droplets.

So it wouldn’t be accurate to say that a droplet-transmitted disease is never airborne. It is already well known that medical procedures can produce smaller droplets than occur naturally, aerosolizing the particles and allowing germs that would normally fall out of the air to stay airborne. Drs. Brosseau and Jones suggest that even vomiting or flushing a toilet can aerosolize infectious particles. These particles don’t stay in the air indefinitely like those of a true airborne disease, but people working close by can still breathe them in and get infected.

So why is this issue relevant to health care personnel in the U.S.? I’ve just got through explaining how Ebola in the U.S. is basically not a thing. What unnerves me, as a person staring down a lot of years working in a hospital, is that if Ebola is not that easy to get, what does it say about infection control in hospitals when healthcare workers get infected?

The two healthcare workers in Texas who contracted Ebola from the first U.S. patient back in September were exposed for one of two reasons. Either the protocols in place to prevent infection weren’t followed correctly, or the protocols were inadequate. It’s often hard to say which it is.  As this article in Science makes so vivid, there is not always an event that can be pinpointed to explain someone’s exposure.

The CDC has now changed its guidelines for working with patients with Ebola, but at the time that the first U.S. case was admitted, the official recommendation was droplet precautions. Someone scrupulously following the rules could still have been exposed. More concerning still is the case of the doctor in New York, who is one of a handful of people to become exposed during their time working with Doctors Without Borders, the organization whose protections for healthcare workers has become a model throughout the world.

When HIV first came to the U.S.,establishing universal precautions was an uphill battle. It succeeded in part because of the widespread fear of AIDS, and because health care workers who had contracted HIV from their patients told their stories and moved people to change the culture. The health care workers infected with Ebola remind us of the limits of these hard-won standard precautions. When greater protection means having to work in uncomfortable equipment, how worried would you have to be about getting sick to agitate for a new standard? Engineers, please get on this.

What does all this mean about all the other infections U.S. hospitals do see on a regular basis? If a nurse can get Ebola from her patient, she can get influenza from her patient. Which, incidentally, means her other patients can get influenza from her. For context, the U.S. recently had 770,000 hospital-acquired infections in a single year. That’s what I’m freaking out about today.

As a nation we have wasted a lot of our precious time worrying about whether a few health care workers pose a threat to the general public. Maybe we should be more worried about what it means for our health care when we force the people who care for us to risk their own health by doing their jobs.

 I’d like to thank my father-in-law Frank Mirer for steering me straight on some of the occupational health issues in this post.

I made that comic on Pixton.

In Praise of C-Sections

You know who makes a really macho crowd? Biological mothers. I have watched people who for most of their lives have espoused a mainstream, less-is-better approach to pain suddenly bragging about it as though the involuntary firing of their nociceptors were an achievement. People who are completely pleasant as a rule will hear the word “epidural” and SHOONK they are transformed into The Uterus Gladiators! With savage glee they race into a totally imaginary arena, to compete with other savagely gleeful person-hatchers, in an epic fight to decide once and for all who had the most pain in childbirth, and–importantly–who sought the least relief for that pain.

Whee! This is fun! Pay no attention to that octopus.

Whee! This is fun! Pay no attention to that octopus.

You’ve probably guessed I have limited patience for this brand of one-upmanship. There are women in my life whom I deeply respect that have chosen home birth (okay only one woman but I respect the living daylights out of her judgment), and lots more that have chosen to forgo pain relief in a hospital delivery. That is a totally awesome choice if it is a thing that you want to do, and I’m glad that activists over the years have succeeded in making these options available to everyone. But if that is not your thing, oy gevult don’t feel ashamed of yourself. Like any kind of treatment there are costs and benefits to pain relief in childbirth, but that doesn’t make it bad. I’m hereby giving you permission: you do not and should not have to justify the decision to relieve your pain.

The Uterus Gladiators, however, are nothing compared to the Vagina Valkyries. You know who I mean. The women who have experienced a vaginal delivery and now feel lifetime superiority over the women who required or–gasp!–chose a surgical delivery.  “I had a baby with no medical intervention,” I hear one of them bragging before yoga class, shortly before sprouting wings and flying off to adjudicate some Norse battle deaths. You’d really think from the sound of it that medical intervention was a vice.

C-sections are often not a matter of choice, but a life and/or death situation. Sometimes they are a measure of last resort after the first, second, and third choices have been exhausted. Some c-sections are elective, but the term “elective” is loaded. Are the consequences of not electing this procedure acceptable? That’s subjective. And that’s what bothers me about the push to shame patients out of seeking medical care by convincing them that they are less–less strong, less brave, less womanly, less maternal, less natural, less smart, less aware, less educated, less thorough, less fierce in standing up for their rights, less resistant to domination by medical practitioners. My husband refers to this movement as “the crunchy granola arm of the patriarchy.” I call it rudeness personified.

Maybe it’s time for c-section veterans to start bragging. “Yeah, boyyyyy, I had a major abdominal surgery, and they took a baby out of me. And then I HEALED. And didn’t have any INCONTINENCE. And my vagina has not lost any TONE. Yeah! Yeah! Wooa wooa!”

This might be the time to warn you there’s a picture of a baby being born via c-section at the bottom of this post. If you’re not so good with such pictures, you may want to scroll slowly.

There is a real public health issue at play here. Per the WHO, ideally 10-15% of all deliveries should be c-sections. Fewer than that constitutes “underuse,” which is common in developing countries, and more constitutes “overuse,” which is common in developed countries. Where I live the rate is close to 30%.  So is this a problem, and if so how big? It’s an area of heated debate. Almost all of the evidence comparing c-sections to vaginal deliveries is observational, meaning it comes from studies that compared outcomes from women who wound up with c-sections to outcomes from women who wound up with vaginal deliveries. Obviously, women don’t wind up in these categories at random, so some factors will predict both choice of a c-section and risk to mother and baby, creating spurious associations. I’m personally skeptical that all such factors can be measured and controlled-for in an observational study.

I’d really like to see some randomized trials to help guide decision making, but to date there are almost none. The evidence base, in short, is lacking. Do remember this when everyone starts shouting. However, be comforted by the fact that one reason there isn’t a huge rush to conduct such a randomized trial is that both methods of childbirth are quite low risk. Even if one does turn out to be safer than the other when all the evidence is in (someday, I hope, sigh), this is still a choice between good and better.

I totally hear the historical argument about how birth has been medicalized, and I’m right there with anybody who wants to argue that pregnancy and birth are normal and should not be treated like diseases. But birth also involves things that are the rightful province of medicine–pain, organ damage, morbidity, mortality. No one should be required to make their decisions about these things differently than they would in another context because they are choosing it for a birth. And they are also not required to justify their choices (I said it again). Every birth is different, and you really don’t know what you would have chosen if you had had someone else’s birth experience–this goes double for cis men.

This is not just another I’m-okay-you’re-okay everybody’s-choice-is-great post for the feminine blogosphere. This is a post in praise of c-sections. I am so glad that this surgery exists. I am so glad that we have come far enough that not being able to expel a baby from your body in the traditional way does not mean that it has or you have to die. Cesarean sections save lives. Sometimes they are awesome. So how about we dismiss the Vagina Valkyries with the eyerolls they have earned, and turn our attention to making this life-saving surgery available to every woman around the world that needs it. Or wants it.

This is objectively awesome.

This is objectively awesome.

Photo Credits
Vaginal birth art: Lynn Friedman via photopin cc
C-section photo: emergencydoc via photopin cc